EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is not because it is a disaster, it is because your idea of a oz/ca market economy won't occur.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Why ever not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That is easy. Who is going to implement this?
Even if you think the Conservatives would, would they have the political capital to institute such changes given no other political party would support them in it?
As for Jeremy Corbyn... I have a strong feeling that is a no.

---

Is a Oz/CA style market economy so extreme?

Osborne's plan was to take spending as a proportion of GDP down from 43% (about the same as Germany), down to 37%, and that program was down to about 38.5% in late 2017 before the "end of austerity" was announced.

Oz/Ca are in the mid thirties, which is but a hop and jump away further on from Osbornes plan.

It would be a terrible shock to a continental social democracry, but really not much lower than the historic norms this country was used to before Brown's firehose welfare spending.

But I say this in reference to no-deal, when it would be flat out necessary.
The quid-pro-quo you're offered right now with May's deal is that we'll hover around 40% of GDP on the edges of euro-style social democrary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Is a Oz/CA style market economy so extreme?

---

I thought you were implying further than simple lowering of spending as per GDP. As in, privatisation of the NHS and other institutions.

As for the latter, Austerity has hit this country hard and services are seriously suffering the effects of this. It is sad to see on the ground level when people are desperate for help and the answer they get is "no" due to no funding.

Free at the point of use does not mean government needs to run all of it.

we arent far off now. just one more push to 33% of gdp, comrades! ;)

but, if that is unpalatable ,then all you need do is relax and think of may...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What sort of managed transition are we talking about? There is no managed transition at any other broder, or is there? What would a managed transition change and why do you want one? IIRC the EU was willing to negotiate a transition phase for the entire Brexit thing, what became of that? I will admit I didn't read May's deal, maybe it's already in there.
The ball is in your court though since you want to leave and you are the ones who have to come up with a solution for your country. Perhaps the EU refuses the managed transition because Ireland doesn't want that? Maybe it's the attempt to pressure the UK into a deal without any transitions. If you don't accept the deal, they can blame you for the border being there. This is how politics are played if you "cancel the friendship" I guess. Wasn't my idea... :shrug:

---

There is supposed to be a two-year transition period, which was meant to be the time when we sorted out the "Irish question" and our future relationship with the EU in detail.

However, because of the EU's intransigence over the Backstop that grace-period where we are essentially a non-voting member of the EU may not come into effect.

This is why I say the EU should be willing to allow the possibility of a hardening of the Irish border with a timed backstop (five-seven years from now) if they're willing to default to one in four weeks.

The Insistence there can "never" be a hard border is currently driving us towards a hard border NOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Free at the point of use does not mean government needs to run all of it.

we arent far off now. just one more push to 33% of gdp, comrades! ;)

but, if that is unpalatable ,then all you need do is relax and think of may...

---

Ideologically driven GDP-spending targets are bad. The Conservative Program or Austerity went about twice as far as it should have given the economic circumstances at present. 35% of GDP is workable for a booming economy, but our economy is not booming.

At present most departments other than the NHS are chronically under-funded for what they actually need to do.

Further, privatisation has failed to drive down costs for the Government in providing services because Private Sector Healthcare needs to make profits and those profits mean that the net cost of providing those services privately is higher, not lower. That's not to say the NHS isn't a money sink, but a lot of it is debt and over-paid administrators. The latter could be resolved be enacting pay-caps for senior staff, the former by tranfering NHS trust debt to Central Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

This is why I say the EU should be willing to allow the possibility of a hardening of the Irish border with a timed backstop (five-seven years from now) if they're willing to default to one in four weeks.

The Insistence there can "never" be a hard border is currently driving us towards a hard border NOW.

---

Maybe the EU's stated goals are not its real goals. Unless you know that, it's hard to say they're being illogical. I somehow doubt that their negotiators haven't figured this out.

The goal is clear; regulatory capture in goods, services, and flanking policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Ideologically driven GDP-spending targets are bad. The Conservative Program or Austerity went about twice as far as it should have given the economic circumstances at present. 35% of GDP is workable for a booming economy, but our economy is not booming.

At present most departments other than the NHS are chronically under-funded for what they actually need to do.

Further, privatisation has failed to drive down costs for the Government in providing services because Private Sector Healthcare needs to make profits and those profits mean that the net cost of providing those services privately is higher, not lower. That's not to say the NHS isn't a money sink, but a lot of it is debt and over-paid administrators. The latter could be resolved be enacting pay-caps for senior staff, the former by tranfering NHS trust debt to Central Government.

---

The last paragraph is one of the demands made by a US government for any UK-US trade deal. Along with food and production standards aligned with the US. Another demand is that the GBP should not be manipulated to improve trade; does the EU demand this kind of fiscal control in our current position? In all likelihood, if we want non-standard relations with the US, we will have to submit to a realignment to standards that we're not used to, or want (apart from the ideologues). Unlike the ECJ which has backed us in the overwhelming majority of cases (95%), any disputes with the US will be resolved as per who can afford to take the most damage, meaning we will lose out every time (cf. Bombardier). And unlike in the EU, where we are represented at local and national levels (via MEPs and commissioners), we won't have a say in the standards to which we have to conform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Maybe the EU's stated goals are not its real goals. Unless you know that, it's hard to say they're being illogical. I somehow doubt that their negotiators haven't figured this out.

---

That view gives credence to those who believe the Backstop is a "trap" designed to yoke the UK to the EU in an unfavourable position until we give up and re-join, sans Rebate.

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The last paragraph is one of the demands made by a US government for any UK-US trade deal. Along with food and production standards aligned with the US. Another demand is that the GBP should not be manipulated to improve trade; does the EU demand this kind of fiscal control in our current position? In all likelihood, if we want non-standard relations with the US, we will have to submit to a realignment to standards that we're not used to, or want (apart from the ideologues). Unlike the ECJ which has backed us in the overwhelming majority of cases (95%), any disputes with the US will be resolved as per who can afford to take the most damage, meaning we will lose out every time (cf. Bombardier). And unlike in the EU, where we are represented at local and national levels (via MEPs and commissioners), we won't have a say in the standards to which we have to conform.

---

The EU rejected Italy's budget despite that budget being within the required limits of government deficit. Germany previously breached the same rules and was not sanctioned but the EU chose to undermine the democratically elected Italian Government who were operating within rules Germany broke and demand more austerity - i.e. a further reduction is Italian Government spending as a proportion of GDP.

Italy is now back in recession as the result of an un-competitive economy and chronic under-spending leading to crumbling infrastructure - and I mean literally crumbling roads and bridges here.

The EU is calibrated to benefit the largest Northern European economies, principally Germany, Britain and a Northern France (Southern France gets shafted), it does not work nearly so well for the Mediterranean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

That view gives credence to those who believe the Backstop is a "trap" designed to yoke the UK to the EU in an unfavourable position until we give up and re-join, sans Rebate.

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.



The EU rejected Italy's budget despite that budget being within the required limits of government deficit. Germany previously breached the same rules and was not sanctioned but the EU chose to undermine the democratically elected Italian Government who were operating within rules Germany broke and demand more austerity - i.e. a further reduction is Italian Government spending as a proportion of GDP.

Italy is now back in recession as the result of an un-competitive economy and chronic under-spending leading to crumbling infrastructure - and I mean literally crumbling roads and bridges here.

The EU is calibrated to benefit the largest Northern European economies, principally Germany, Britain and a Northern France (Southern France gets shafted), it does not work nearly so well for the Mediterranean.

---

So why are we leaving, when it's geared towards us? Note the list of things that the US is demanding of us. Call me selfish, but I'd rather not penalise us just because there might be an argument of unfairness against Italy. I don't want there to be unfairness against us. Outside the EU, and desperate for an agreement with the US to justify Brexit, that is what we'll get. In addition to the US looking to screw us over, Japan and anyone else who thinks they can get more is postponing agreement with us while they think of additional demands they can make post-Brexit.

Also, Italy are in the Eurozone. We are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So why are we leaving, when it's geared towards us? Note the list of things that the US is demanding of us. Call me selfish, but I'd rather not penalise us just because there might be an argument of unfairness against Italy. I don't want there to be unfairness against us. Outside the EU, and desperate for an agreement with the US to justify Brexit, that is what we'll get. In addition to the US looking to screw us over, Japan and anyone else who thinks they can get more is postponing agreement with us while they think of additional demands they can make post-Brexit.

Also, Italy are in the Eurozone. We are not.

---

We're leaving because the EU is badly designed, ill thought-out and driving its members towards economic stagnation and possibly Fascism. The Treaty of Rome commits EU members to "Ever closer Union" which means we would eventually have to join the Euro or leave the EU. In any case, the Euro was just used as a stick to beat an Italian Government that was ideologically non-compliant. The Germanic States control the EU and they increasingly demand that the Mediterranean States align economically and ideologically, rather than trying to find a compromise that works for everyone.

The Backstop is the same, the Germanic leaders of the EU require the UK to comply, or No Deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

We're leaving because the EU is badly designed, ill thought-out and driving its members towards economic stagnation possibly Fascism. The Treaty of Rome commits EU members to "Ever closer Union" which means we would eventually have to join the EU or leave the EU. In any case, the Euro was just used as a stick to beat an Italian Government that was ideologically non-compliant. The Germanic States control the EU and they increasingly demand that the Mediterranean States align economically and ideologically, rather than trying to find a compromise that works for everyone.

The Backstop is the same, the Germanic leaders of the EU require the UK to comply, or No Deal.

---

Why would there be a back stop if we're in the EU? Also, the requirement for a back stop only began after May got assurances to allow talks to move forward, then the next day Davis told UK media that the UK government had no intention of keeping its promises. The EU 27 were content to allow the UK government to progress with informal understandings, but the UK government then said that it had no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. As one of the EU ministers said after that, they can read the UK press as well. If you don't like the back stop, blame the UK government for telling different lies to different audiences and assuming each is unaware of the lies being told to the other audience.

And BTW, given your evident dislike of the Germanic leaders of the EU, it's Merkel who's been keeping things cordial between the EU 27 and the UK. A fair few others have complained plenty about the UK.

Oh, and what do you mean by the EU driving its members towards Fascism? It's the UK who's said that they're leaving the EU because of immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.

---

but solve that problem, and the Withdrawal agreement (with the backstop) would become tolerable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Oh, and what do you mean by the EU driving its members towards Fascism? It's the UK who's said that they're leaving the EU because of immigration.

---

You confusing cause with effect.
Despite being among the most tolerant of immigration (by some measure!) we did indeed have 'a problem' with immigration.
Now that there will be control of immigration that 'problem' has further subsided.
And our hard-right and populist right parties have atrophied as a result.

Across the channel on the other hand....

Where 'the problem' with immigration has not been addressed, the hard right and populist right are now either:
a) In power
b) The official opposition
c) Threatening to eclipse mainstream parties in terms of vote share and/or MP's

PFH is absolutely correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

...The Backstop is the same, the Germanic leaders of the EU require the UK to comply, or No Deal.

---

My thoughts all along are that the unspoken goal of the EU was to pressure the UK into reversing the Brexit decision. Failing that, the goal is to punish them harshly enough (with exquisite politeness) so that no other nation would attempt to withdraw.

From the EU perspective, which rests on the centerpiece that the union will be collectively empowering to all members, this is a fairly rational course of action. If anything, England (which never adopted the Euro or seemed willing to 'toe the line' on greater and greater integration with the rest of Europe, makes for the ideal "example" choice, as Arouet phrased it, pour encourager les autres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

That view gives credence to those who believe the Backstop is a "trap" designed to yoke the UK to the EU in an unfavourable position until we give up and re-join, sans Rebate.

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.

---

Assume this is all sound analysis. You still haven't explained why the UK government or Parliament don't broach the question. If the EU is bluffing and wants to fetter the UK, and there is one simple trick to avert it or expose the EU, by advancing your backstop conditions, then how is it the EU's onus to call their own bluff rather than the UK's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

but solve that problem, and the Withdrawal agreement (with the backstop) would become tolerable?
You confusing cause with effect.
Despite being among the most tolerant of immigration (by some measure!) we did indeed have 'a problem' with immigration.
Now that there will be control of immigration that 'problem' has further subsided.
And our hard-right and populist right parties have atrophied as a result.

Across the channel on the other hand....

Where 'the problem' with immigration has not been addressed, the hard right and populist right are now either:
a) In power
b) The official opposition
c) Threatening to eclipse mainstream parties in terms of vote share and/or MP's

PFH is absolutely correct.

---

I hate to break it to you, but expect the far-right hiatus to end once Brexit is implemented and the aspects of British immigration they despise still persist...

In the realm of the speculative all these i can usefully respond with is; we shall see.

objective fact:
the uk has a more positive view of immigration (as a process), and immigrants (as people), than almost any other eu nation.
the salience of immigration has declined since the referendum .
the uk has zero hard right mp's in its parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why would there be a back stop if we're in the EU? Also, the requirement for a back stop only began after May got assurances to allow talks to move forward, then the next day Davis told UK media that the UK government had no intention of keeping its promises. The EU 27 were content to allow the UK government to progress with informal understandings, but the UK government then said that it had no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. As one of the EU ministers said after that, they can read the UK press as well. If you don't like the back stop, blame the UK government for telling different lies to different audiences and assuming each is unaware of the lies being told to the other audience.

And BTW, given your evident dislike of the Germanic leaders of the EU, it's Merkel who's been keeping things cordial between the EU 27 and the UK. A fair few others have complained plenty about the UK.

Oh, and what do you mean by the EU driving its members towards Fascism? It's the UK who's said that they're leaving the EU because of immigration.

---

I don't dislike Germanic people, I'm about as Germanic as it gets. The point is merely that the Germanic nations (including the UK) have the economic clout and they use this to impose their Germanic worldview on everyone else.

The UK is leaving the EU (in part) because people want control of immigration, not to stop immigration. The UK is actually quite welcoming of immigrants on the whole but people feel that whoever they vote for under the EU they will be told to accept more immigrants. Of course, in reality this started under Tony Blair and was a Labour policy, to increase immigration from inside and outside the EU so as to alter British demographics, to make the country overall younger and less... British.

A Cynical strategy designed to increase Labour's vote share.

I'm going to need you to dig up David Davis' quote if you're going to keep referring to it because my recollection was that he said he expected to be able to renegotiate the Irish question, because there hadn't yet been a legal agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

but solve that problem, and the Withdrawal agreement (with the backstop) would become tolerable?

---

I don't see why it shouldn't be tolerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Assume this is all sound analysis. You still haven't explained why the UK government or Parliament don't broach the question. If the EU is bluffing and wants to fetter the UK, and there is one simple trick to avert it or expose the EU, by advancing your backstop conditions, then how is it the EU's onus to call their own bluff rather than the UK's?

---

The UK Government told the EU, over and over again, that Parliament would not accept a perpetual Backstop, there needed to be a unilateral exit mechanism, or a time limit. The EU said this was not acceptable and basically wore May down until she agreed.

The truth is, the EU won't budge, so May is putting the votes further and further back in the hope tha Parliament might blink, but it's voted the deal down once by an historical margin, so it will be inclined not to reverse its decision. Remember, there's going to be an election in a few years, and nobody wants to be seen to be "giving in" to the EU, especially when everyone expects now that if the Backstop IS activated we'll end up trapped in it.

Quote:

---

I hate to break it to you, but expect the far-right hiatus to end once Brexit is implemented and the aspects of British immigration they despise still persist...

---

Why? Dissatisfaction with the EU is THE main driver for people to vote for far-right politicians. People don't usually vote for extreme ideologues, they only do so when desperate. Within the "Mainstream" political establishment in every European country every party is essentially pro-EU. All are in favour of "Ever Closer Union", the difference is merely the speed of progress.

So, if you want to STOP the Ever Closer Union because you don't want more integration then you only have the fringe Left and fringe Right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The UK Government told the EU, over and over again, that Parliament would not accept a perpetual Backstop, there needed to be a unilateral exit mechanism, or a time limit. The EU said this was not acceptable and basically wore May down until she agreed.

---

OK, so you're saying the negotiators did ask and the EU refused.

Quote:

---

Why? Dissatisfaction with the EU is THE main driver for people to vote for far-right politicians. People don't usually vote for extreme ideologues, they only do so when desperate. Within the "Mainstream" political establishment in every European country every party is essentially pro-EU. All are in favour of "Ever Closer Union", the difference is merely the speed of progress.

So, if you want to STOP the Ever Closer Union because you don't want more integration then you only have the fringe Left and fringe Right.

---

I think you're mistaken in your etiology. The UK is lucky to have the EU as a scapegoat, but in reality the whole structure of the modern world and life is to blame here. Around the world, the weakening of states and the strengthening of markets, coupled with increasing expectations placed on states by their citizens and the increasing insecurity of individuals and communities within the market economy, is what is driving reaction.

The reason European governments got away with increasing integration through technocratic means in the late 20th century is because very few people care (unlike Furunculus) about abstract ideological debates surrounding European governance. When it doesn't live up to its promise, it's an easy lodestone for general discontent. In other words, the EU's fault is in being unable to prevent the conditions for reaction. To label it the source is to have things on their head.

In the UK's case, once Brexit is implemented and immigration continues apace (with a greater proportion of non-whites), when Britain is not returned to a position of global pre-eminence, when crumbling communities are still crumbling, when the future is uncertain - once the breath bated for Brexit is released, the anger will re-emerge, and the far right will still have a claim to stake in that anger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

OK, so you're saying the negotiators did ask and the EU refused.

---

Yes, and now they have given up:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ilateral-exit/

So the deal will be rejected again, there'll be some form of extension quickly agreed, then more profitless arguing whilst Europe and the UK commence rearmament. (I am being flippant, it's how we British cope with frustration.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I think you're mistaken in your etiology. The UK is lucky to have the EU as a scapegoat, but in reality the whole structure of the modern world and life is to blame here. Around the world, the weakening of states and the strengthening of markets, coupled with increasing expectations placed on states by their citizens and the increasing insecurity of individuals and communities within the market economy, is what is driving reaction.

The reason European governments got away with increasing integration through technocratic means in the late 20th century is because very few people care (unlike Furunculus) about abstract ideological debates surrounding European governance. When it doesn't live up to its promise, it's an easy lodestone for general discontent. In other words, the EU's fault is in being unable to prevent the conditions for reaction. To label it the source is to have things on their head.

In the UK's case, once Brexit is implemented and immigration continues apace (with a greater proportion of non-whites), when Britain is not returned to a position of global pre-eminence, when crumbling communities are still crumbling, when the future is uncertain - once the breath bated for Brexit is released, the anger will re-emerge, and the far right will still have a claim to stake in that anger.

---

Perhaps, or perhaps things will improve enough that that won't happen.

As Furunculus says, there are no Far-Right MP's in our Parliament, and there never have been. On the other hand, the dynamics of the EU Parliament have caused the Conservatives to associate with the Far Right because they are the only ones on the mainland who are remotely Eurosceptic. That's why we send our crap Politicians to Europe, you see, in case they suffer that sort of contamination. Nick Clegg was the exception, but then he was a Lib Dem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I don't dislike Germanic people, I'm about as Germanic as it gets. The point is merely that the Germanic nations (including the UK) have the economic clout and they use this to impose their Germanic worldview on everyone else.

The UK is leaving the EU (in part) because people want control of immigration, not to stop immigration. The UK is actually quite welcoming of immigrants on the whole but people feel that whoever they vote for under the EU they will be told to accept more immigrants. Of course, in reality this started under Tony Blair and was a Labour policy, to increase immigration from inside and outside the EU so as to alter British demographics, to make the country overall younger and less... British.

A Cynical strategy designed to increase Labour's vote share.

I'm going to need you to dig up David Davis' quote if you're going to keep referring to it because my recollection was that he said he expected to be able to renegotiate the Irish question, because there hadn't yet been a legal agreement.



I don't see why it shouldn't be tolerable.



The UK Government told the EU, over and over again, that Parliament would not accept a perpetual Backstop, there needed to be a unilateral exit mechanism, or a time limit. The EU said this was not acceptable and basically wore May down until she agreed.

The truth is, the EU won't budge, so May is putting the votes further and further back in the hope tha Parliament might blink, but it's voted the deal down once by an historical margin, so it will be inclined not to reverse its decision. Remember, there's going to be an election in a few years, and nobody wants to be seen to be "giving in" to the EU, especially when everyone expects now that if the Backstop IS activated we'll end up trapped in it.



Why? Dissatisfaction with the EU is THE main driver for people to vote for far-right politicians. People don't usually vote for extreme ideologues, they only do so when desperate. Within the "Mainstream" political establishment in every European country every party is essentially pro-EU. All are in favour of "Ever Closer Union", the difference is merely the speed of progress.

So, if you want to STOP the Ever Closer Union because you don't want more integration then you only have the fringe Left and fringe Right.

---

There is a way for the UK to end the back stop, that the EU has agreed to, that the UK has stated. All the UK has to do is to install the technological solution that it says it will do, and there is no need for a hard border, and the EU has agreed that the need for a back stop will be over. This is what the UK government has promised will happen. Why this worry about a perpetual back stop? The UK government just has to do what it's promised it will do.

Unless, of course, the UK government has, yet again, made promises it has no intention of keeping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There is a way for the UK to end the back stop, that the EU has agreed to, that the UK has stated. All the UK has to do is to install the technological solution that it says it will do, and there is no need for a hard border, and the EU has agreed that the need for a back stop will be over. This is what the UK government has promised will happen. Why this worry about a perpetual back stop? The UK government just has to do what it's promised it will do.

Unless, of course, the UK government has, yet again, made promises it has no intention of keeping.

---

Mayhap we fear the EU will declare our solution "inadequate"?

The lack of trust cuts both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Mayhap we fear the EU will declare our solution "inadequate"?

The lack of trust cuts both ways.

---

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the uk has zero hard right mp's in its parliament.

---

This only proves that 45% of the country aren't represented in parliament under FPTP. ~;p

the euro - a sterling success?

https://www.cep.eu/en/eu-topics/deta...nd-losers.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

---

The Civil Service - a career where after two years to sort something out they can turn around and say "It was hard. We've not done anything. It will break." And then be declared as doing a great job.

I can't recall the EU providing outcomes to any of the other updates over the years - merely that the documents need to be signed. If the populace say no (such as Ireland or Denmark) change the goalposts slightly and rerun; or better yet, change the name and state there's no need at all (France).

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the euro - a sterling success?

https://www.cep.eu/en/eu-topics/deta...nd-losers.html

---

Another neoliberal think tank. :laugh4:

No, I'm not making it up, they literally are based on Hayek's ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Ordnungspolitik

Oh yeah, content, maybe when I have some free time and feel like reading a boring article. The methodology seems a bit nebulous though. I guess we don't have a better one, but it's still guesswork and can probably be manipulated in either direction by the one performing the study (just so happens to be a neoliberal here). So the hard numbers aren't quite as hard as they seem.

I posted this a few pages back. I'm sorry if I've erroneously misled anyone as to which manufacturers are remaining in the UK after Brexit. I have to admit, mea culpa. I didn't have access to the information that I do now.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzw_kckWoAAiqGA.jpg

Correction: Toyota should have a cross over it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

---

Nobody believes a solution exists, some believe one may exist in a year or two. That's not the point, for Parliament at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I posted this a few pages back. I'm sorry if I've erroneously misled anyone as to which manufacturers are remaining in the UK after Brexit. I have to admit, mea culpa. I didn't have access to the information that I do now.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzw_kckWoAAiqGA.jpg

Correction: Toyota should have a cross over it too.

---

It should be pointed out that the Japanese were always going to leave the UK once their Japanese-built models had tarrif-free access to the EU. To pretend otherwise is not only foolish but an insult to the integrity of Japanese corporations who will always build it in Japan if feasible.

So that leave Mini, Ford and Airbus. Irrc Airbus had one foot out the door before Brexit and Ford are under pressure to return production to the US because of Trump's trade policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Nobody believes a solution exists, some believe one may exist in a year or two. That's not the point, for Parliament at least.



It should be pointed out that the Japanese were always going to leave the UK once their Japanese-built models had tarrif-free access to the EU. To pretend otherwise is not only foolish but an insult to the integrity of Japanese corporations who will always build it in Japan if feasible.

So that leave Mini, Ford and Airbus. Irrc Airbus had one foot out the door before Brexit and Ford are under pressure to return production to the US because of Trump's trade policies.

---

Honda were going to switch to electric but decided to leave altogether.

BTW, you mentioned control of immigration in an earlier post. The UK government has always had control of immigration. It's just decided not to exercise it. Most immigration to the UK is from outside the EU. Even within the EU, EU citizens migrating here for work do not have rights to services.

Edit: Vauxhall have now postponed decisions until after Brexit. Is that the fault of the EU-Japan treaty as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

---

It seems the government will be taking the Fox route rather than Gove's. Cut tariffs on nearly everything. That means severe damage to agriculture and manufacturing, as imports will be exempt from additional charges, and with lower costs or scaled up economies, undercut domestic production. Exports will be subject to these charges, and will be uncompetitive. And there will be no need for trade deals, as other countries will have all they want without any need to further negotiate.

London, with its economy concentrated in services, may suffer less damage. PFH's Devon would probably suffer rather more. Especially as the EU will no longer be investing in these areas, and Westminster has never felt much urge to. Less funding, more unemployment, worse economy. This was why neighbouring Cornwall, in the week following the result, immediately sought reassurance that Westminster would replace EU funding with domestic. They knew the track record of Westminster, and feared it would do its usual and neglect the south west. And so it seems it will.